G. True Nelson: Former Deputy Sheriff, Military Officer, FBI Special Agent, and Security Consultant / Private Investigator. He currently resides in the Portland, Oregon Metro area. He is a writer on crime and judicial process; as well as discussing his personal observations on American culture and social mores.

RETURN

Monday, March 13, 2017

I’ve always had this tendency to bristle whenever someone,
who has never been in law enforcement or worked in the judicial system, lays
that old saw on me: Justice isn’t always just.
But, of course, they’re right.
It’s sort of a bitter pill to swallow when you’ve dedicated a portion of
your life to that profession.

Nonetheless, this brings me to the article by Maxine
Bernstein in The Oregonian (March 12, 2017) –“Prosecutors Reflect on Refuge
Takeover Trials.” This article pertains
to the second trial in the unlawful takeover of the Malheur National
Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon by ‘armed occupiers.’

The ‘occupation,’ the ‘armed standoff,’ began in January of
2016; and ended with one of the ‘occupiers’ being shot and killed by Oregon
State Police. There was, as noted, an
earlier trial of the principals, the leadership, in that stand-off. All the defendants in the first trial (Ammon
Bundy et al) were acquitted.

Ms. Bernstein asked U.S. Attorney Billy J. Williams – why the
U.S. Attorney’s office pursued a second trial of lesser involved defendants when
the first trial of the leadership ended in acquittals.

Williams said that the “decision to continue to pursue
felony conspiracy charges against the lesser-known defendants, after last
fall’s acquittal of occupation leader Ammon Bundy and six other key figures,
was made between his office and Justice officials.”

And you might ask: What’s
the motivations behind that decision? Well,
there are a couple of possible explanations.

An ‘occupier,’ Robert ‘LaVoy’
Finicum was killed during the ‘stop’ by Oregon State
Police and the FBI. Finicum’s wife is suing the
Federal government charging ‘excessive force and wrongful death,’ among other
things. She is asking for $5 million in
damages for herself and for each of her 12 children. Federal lawyers do not want to go into court
and attempt to fight those charges when no one was actually convicted of a
crime - principally the big seven leaders of the ‘occupation.’ It was imperative, therefore, that the
government win at least some convictions and be able to trot-out some actual
evidence of criminal behavior, even if those persons convicted played more minor
roles.

Furthermore, the U.S. Attorney’s
office admitted that the acquittals in the first trial (the big seven) was an
“excruciating” defeat. And, there could
be an element of ‘saving face’ involved for the U.S. Attorney, the Department
of Justice in D.C., and the FBI.

The U.S. Attorney might also allude
to a responsibility for pursuing prosecutions that are owed to the citizens of
Burns and Harney County who were inconvenienced in many ways. But, I don’t think that aspect was given much
weight.

When Williams was additionally asked how he accepted the two
significantly different trial verdicts, he responded that, “It takes two
different juries evaluating the evidence and testimony and making different
conclusions. Sometimes, that’s how this
system works.’’ No mention was made that
the original defendants were ‘overly charged with complex crimes,’ which seemed
to turn the trial into a nuanced exercise that the jury did not find
understandable or compelling.

But, to many of us, the conclusion is that: Justice is not always just.

The following from Ms. Bernstein’s article:

Felony charges recently adjudicated in the second trial:

Conspiracy to impede employees of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the BLM from doing their work at the
refuge through intimidation, threat or force.

Possessing a firearm in a federal
facility.

Depredation of government
property. (This was interesting. I thought I was fairly familiar with federal
violations investigated by the FBI, but I’d never heard of anything like
“Depredation.” I had to look up the word
in the dictionary and found... “An attack
involving plunder and pillage.” Wow, how
would you like that on your rap sheet?)

Saturday, March 4, 2017

A very interesting development – explosive in a way –
President Donald Trump has accused the Obama administration of placing a ‘wire-tap’
on the offices of candidate Donald Trump – weeks before the election.

In response, Barrack Obama has quickly and formally denied involvement in
any such efforts – which could potentially be considered illegal.

But, don’t be too quick to dismiss this as a Trump fantasy.

It is conceivable that the Obama administration perceived or
imagined Trump’s suspected involvement with the Russians was to undermine the
election. They (the Obama
administration) directed a government agency to present their suspicions, via
affidavit, to the FISA Court. This is
usually done by the FBI or the NSA – but could have been presented by the United States
Attorney. Permission could then have
been granted by the court; and monitoring begun.

Furthermore, the wire-tap process would require the Court to
advise, in writing, the ‘target’ ninety days after the program had been
terminated. The timing seems to
fit. This information could have been
just now dropped in Trump’s lap.

If true, and we don’t know at this point, someone will almost certainly be 'thrown under the bus.' Will it be FBI
Director Comey or perhaps former Attorney General Loretta Lynch?

Obama will simply deny any knowledge and will have undoubtedly prepared a contingency plan.

FISA Court: a U S court composed of a
rotating panel of federal judges that sits in secrecy to review prosecutors'
requests to wiretap telephones of suspected spies and terrorists and to conduct
searches.

Three Laws for Effective Gun Control

Here are three potential laws that I would recommend for effective gun control:

1) Convicted felon in possession of a gun: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole.

2) Knowingly selling or furnishing a gun to a convicted felon: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole.

3) Theft of a gun, during the commission of a felony: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole - sentence in addition to any time associated with the attendant felony.